Compare and contrast the kind of health care implicated by adopting either the theory of justice

provided by Robert Nozick or the one developed by John Rawls.

Libertarianism (Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia 1974)

Libertarianism is a principle that is focused on the individual as an atomic unit. Libertarians

advocate 'negative freedom' in which an individual is free from any interference by others,
especially the government. For them, the state's sole function is to establish the conditions within
which individuals can engage in market exchanges. All government is regarded as a necessary
evil. As mentioned earlier, all rights are 'negative rights. Others are obliged to leave an individual
alone to make exchanges that he/ she freely chooses. Libertarianism does not believe in 'positive
rights' to help others. Although one can if he or she chooses to do, but is not by any means under
any moral or legal obligation to do so. Libertarianism embodies the principle of free will and
self-ownership.

Nozick's theory of justice espouses a healthcare system like the one in the United States of
America where most people are responsible for their own healthcare. For Libertarians, a way to
achieve quality and affordable healthcare is to stop the government from meddling and enable
free-market. Libertarians believe that every individual has the right to make their own medical
decisions. They advocate the removal of government interference from healthcare.

Liberal Egalitarianism (John Rawls. A Theory of Justice 1971)

Liberal Egalitarianism is a theory that believes in equality regardless of race, gender, class, and
so on. John Rawls' theory of justice seeks to combine the values of equality, personal freedom,
and personal responsibility. It supposedly provides a fair argument for inequalities reflecting
differences in choice. It also believes that people are interested in two main things: civil liberties
and material resources. Rawls called his concept of social justice "Justice as fairness", which
consists of two principles. The first principle is the equality of basic goods which concerns
political institutions. "Each person has the same indefeasible permanent claim to a fully
adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all" (Rawls, 1971). This means that everyone has the same basic rights, which are
permanent and can never be taken away. The second principle concerns social and economic
institutions. It believes that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
equality of opportunity and difference principle. Equality of opportunity means that positions are
open to all under the conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Meanwhile, the difference
principle means economic inequalities are justified only and are to be the greatest benefit of the
worst-off group in society.

Liberal Egalitarianism favors Canada's public healthcare system since everyone wants equal
healthcare whatever life we choose, and from whatever socio-economic position we find
ourselves in. Maybe treat basic healthcare as a 1st principle issue. Under the first principle,
healthcare is thought of as a basic right distributed equally. This means that it recognizes a
certain level of health is required for an individual to have any life plans. In liberal
egalitarianism, a distinction must be made between basic and non-basic healthcare. However,
given the difficulties in determining what is basic and non-basic healthcare, people are better off
thinking that healthcare is a basic good that requires a single tier of universal healthcare.